Biotechnology and the Fear of Frankenstein

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
COURTNEY S. CAMPBELL
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Corporate Culture ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Informed Choice ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Social Implications ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The Public ◽  
Educational Agenda ◽  
The Way

It is a commonplace in the scientific and corporate discourse advocating biotechnology that the public is largely uneducated or scientifically illiterate when it comes to understanding the research methods and goals of biotechnology. Public dissent from biotechnology is, in this understanding, based exclusively in irrational fears. The way to dispel these public fears is for scientists in the research community and among corporate culture to engage in education of the public. At one level, it is argued that public educational forums will provide the information the public needs to make an informed choice about the scientific, ethical, and social implications of biotechnology or will provide guidance on such practical questions as whether to consume genetically modified food. However, the educational agenda is not quite that innocent of normative intent: rather, the assumption is that information the public is provided about biotechnology will persuade them of its benefits, its minimal risks, and its ultimate prospects for reshaping our world for the good of all. Objections to biotechnology will then largely dissipate, perhaps voiced occasionally by extremists who will represent the inevitable Luddite resistance to all things technological.

scholarly journals Social Acceptance for Commercialization of Genetically Modified Food Animals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziyao Fan ◽  
Yulian Mu ◽  
Tad Sonstegard ◽  
Xiaomei Zhai ◽  
Kui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Variation ◽  
Social Acceptance ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The Public ◽  
Global Challenge ◽  
Social License ◽  
Food Animals ◽  
Natural Mutation ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Genetically modified food animals (GMFAs) are needed to address early the cumulative effects of livestock production on the environment and to accommodate future food demands. In 2020 China and the U.S., the world's two largest economies, embarked on regulatory reforms to boost the commercialization of such animals. However, gaining social acceptance of GMFAs for commercialization remains a global challenge. We propose a framework that focuses on social license for commercialization of GMFAs by defining four classes of improvement using precision genetics: 1) animals equivalent to natural variation to obtain the improved effect of cross-breeding (ENV); 2) animals with an inactivated gene that could occur via natural mutation (ENC-); 3) animals harboring a natural genetic sequence isolated from another species (ENC+); and 4) animals with synthetic sequences encoding novel genes (BNE). Our approach can guide regulators and the public to support orderly commercialization of genetically modified food animals.

Correcting Misperceptions About Genetically Modified Food on Social Media: Examining the Impact of Experts, Social Media Heuristics, and the Gateway Belief Model

2020 ◽  
pp. 107554702098137
Author(s):  
Leticia Bode ◽  
Emily K. Vraga ◽  
Melissa Tully
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Gm Food ◽  
Belief Model ◽  
The Impact

We experimentally test whether expert organizations on social media can correct misperceptions of the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food for human consumption, as well as what role social media cues, in the form of “likes,” play in that process. We find expert organizations highlighting scientific consensus on GM food safety reduces consensus misperceptions among the public, leading to lower GM misperceptions and boosting related consumption behaviors in line with the gateway belief model. Expert organizations’ credibility may increase as a result of correction, but popularity cues do not seem to affect misperceptions or credibility.

Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 923-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Lassen
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Food Policy ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Parliamentary Debates ◽  
The Public ◽  
Parliamentary Government ◽  
Public Concerns

‘In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as “ethical aspects.” Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.

The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries

1997 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Kerr ◽  
Sarah Cunningham-Burley ◽  
Amanda Amos
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Social Implications ◽  
The Public ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
The Social ◽  
Cognitive Authority ◽  
Ultimate Responsibility ◽  
Use Of Knowledge ◽  
The Way

In this paper we examine new genetics professionals' accounts of the social context of their work. We analyse accounts given in interview by an ‘elite’ group of scientists and clinicians. Drawing on the work of Gilbert and Mulkay (1984), we consider interviewees' discourse about knowledge, exploring the way in which they separate science from society through the use of what we have called the ‘micro/macro split’. We then go on to consider the reasons for such a discursive boundary, exploring the interviewees' wider discourse about expertise and responsibility for the social implications of the new genetics. We argue that interviewees' discursive boundaries allow them to appeal variously to their objectivity, to dismiss bad science and to characterize the public as ignorant. However, these discursive boundaries are permeable and flexible, and are employed to support the new genetics professionals' role in guiding education and government policy, whilst at the same time deflecting ultimate responsibility for the use of knowledge on to an abstract and amorphous society. Responsibility is flexibly embraced and abrogated. These flexible discursive boundaries thus promote rather than challenge the cognitive authority of new genetics professionals as they engage in debates about the social implications of their work. We end by challenging the replication of these discursive boundaries, noting some of the implications of such a critique for evaluation of the new genetics.

scholarly journals Microblog credibility indicators regarding misinformation of genetically modified food on Weibo

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252392
Author(s):  
Jiaojiao Ji ◽  
Naipeng Chao ◽  
Shitong Wei ◽  
George A. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Predictive Power ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Supervised Machine Learning ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The Public ◽  
Gm Food

The considerable amount of misinformation on social media regarding genetically modified (GM) food will not only hinder public understanding but also mislead the public to make unreasoned decisions. This study discovered a new mechanism of misinformation diffusion in the case of GM food and applied a framework of supervised machine learning to identify effective credibility indicators for the misinformation prediction of GM food. Main indicators are proposed, including user identities involved in spreading information, linguistic styles, and propagation dynamics. Results show that linguistic styles, including sentiment and topics, have the dominant predictive power. In addition, among the user identities, engagement, and extroversion are effective predictors, while reputation has almost no predictive power in this study. Finally, we provide strategies that readers should be aware of when assessing the credibility of online posts and suggest improvements that Weibo can use to avoid rumormongering and enhance the science communication of GM food.

The Differential Effects of Knowledge on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food Safety

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Hasell ◽  
Natalie Jomini Stroud
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
The Public ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Types Of Knowledge ◽  
Gm Foods ◽  
The Us ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Despite scientific consensus in the US that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally as safe as conventionally grown foods, the public remains skeptical about their safety. Extant research shows mixed results about the relationship between knowledge and attitudes when it comes to public opinion of GM foods in the US. This study uses data from the Pew American Trends Panel to examine the relationship between knowledge about GM foods and beliefs about their safety, in addition to what may be moderating these relationships. Results show that the relationship between knowledge and belief varies across different types of knowledge and that the effect of knowledge is moderated by perceptions of the immorality of genetic modification, rather than political or religious views.

scholarly journals The controversies of genetically modified food

2021 ◽  
Vol 854 (1) ◽  
pp. 012009
Author(s):  
K Blagoevska ◽  
G Ilievska ◽  
D Jankuloski ◽  
B Stojanovska Dimzoska ◽  
R Crceva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Value ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Genetically Modified Food ◽  
Consumer Health ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Gm Foods ◽  
The Impact ◽  
As Toxicity

Abstract The increasing use of genetically modified (GM) foods and feeds attracts the interest of media and public, causing great concern among consumers about the consequences of their consumption. The issues of concern are mainly focused on the impact on consumer health and the repercussions on the environment. The biggest fears are the possible negative consequences on human and animal health, which encompass allergic reactions, side effects such as toxicity, damage to individual organs, gene transfer and differences in nutritional value. Consumers are unsure and confused as to whether consuming GM foods is harmful to their health or not. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted between October 2019 and March 2020, 48% of respondents said GM foods are harmful, 13% responded GM foods are safe, while 37% of respondents could not express their opinion due to lack of knowledge about it. Numerous studies have been undertaken to examine the effects that GM foods and feeds exert on humans and animals. The results differ in many ways that issue numerous questions. In this paper, we will try addressing questions that concern the public, as well as the activities and measures that science and competent institutions are taking to confront them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document